Martin Pont

This is a case management ruling in a family law matter where the court converted a long motion and cross-motion into a case management attendance due to excessive materials and the need for directions.

The respondent husband was found to be non-compliant with previous court orders, including failing to provide a reliable financial statement, not disclosing a significant inheritance, and dissipating funds intended for spousal support.

The court appointed an expert to value the husband's corporate interests and income and to trace funds.

The court ordered the husband to provide security in the amount of $650,000 for the equalization payment, citing his concerning conduct and the potential unenforceability of future orders.

The husband's motion for interim disbursements was dismissed.

The ruling also set strict directions for future motions and a timeline for further proceedings, including a third-party disclosure motion and a motion to strike the husband's pleadings.

The wife brought a motion seeking the release of $500,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home to pay her legal and accounting fees.

The husband opposed the release and brought a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the wife's motion for alleged non-compliance with prior orders, requesting alternate security for his equalization claim, and seeking further disclosure and costs thrown away for cancelled questioning.

The court found the wife was not in breach of prior orders and granted the release of $500,000, noting the husband had already received a significant advance from the proceeds.

The court declined to order the wife to pledge her RRSP due to tax consequences but issued a general preservation order over her assets.

The court also ordered the wife to provide further disclosure, fixed dates for questioning, and awarded the husband $2,000 for costs thrown away.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year marriage.

The respondent, a successful businessperson with complex corporate structures, repeatedly failed to provide full financial disclosure, leading the court to draw an adverse inference.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $598,810 annually based on a conservative three-year average of his income, including personal benefits paid through his corporations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $19,750 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2021, resulting in a lump sum payment of $256,750.

The applicant wife brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondent husband regarding his personal finances and interests in over twenty companies.

The court ordered the husband to provide the requested disclosure, including a proper financial statement, tax returns, and corporate records, by specified deadlines.

The court dismissed the wife's request for non-party production orders as premature.

The court also ordered the husband to retain a business valuation expert by a set date, failing which it would consider appointing the wife's expert as a court-appointed expert.

The moving party wife sought interim costs and disbursements of $500,000 to fund her family law and oppression remedy claims against the responding party husband, who controlled the family's closely-held corporations.

She also sought temporary spousal support and an order compelling the husband to answer undertakings and refusals from his questioning.

The court awarded $250,000 in interim costs under the OBCA as an advance against her shareholdings, finding her oppression claim had sufficient merit and she lacked liquid resources.

The court also ordered the husband to pay $3,000 per month in temporary spousal support to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes, and compelled him to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The applicant wife sought interim spousal support and a non-dissipation order.

The parties consented to the non-dissipation order.

The court addressed interim spousal support, considering the husband's high income ($2.09 million/year) and the wife's imputed income ($30,000/year) after a 15.5-year relationship.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) principles for high-income earners, noting the SSAG ceiling is not a hard cap.

Considering the non-compensatory nature of the support, the substantial equalization payments already made and anticipated, and the parties' relative budgets, the court ordered the husband to pay $30,000 per month in temporary spousal support, a 50% increase from previous consensual payments.

The issue of retroactive support was deferred to trial.

The applicant sought interim orders under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from dissipating assets, alleging depletion of capital that would impair her equalization and retroactive support claims.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and the relief sought was excessive.

The court found that while reckless depletion was not proven, there was a real risk the applicant would be unable to collect on a significant judgment due to the respondent's financial arrangements and delays.

The court granted a more tailored interim order, preserving specific assets, requiring the registration of a certificate of pending litigation against a cottage, and mandating a $4 million bond or letter of credit, while allowing the respondent to conduct ordinary course business with reporting requirements.